What is the proof? – Balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt

What is the proof? – Balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt

Introduction

Common law has two standards of proof. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal cases, and “preponderance of the evidence” (or “balance of probabilities” in English law) for civil cases. The phrase, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is familiar in criminal matters. This is the proof or the standard that is required to implicate the defendant in criminal cases.”Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest standard level of proof that one truly committed the said crime. Prosecutors and the plaintiff have to work and find the standard proof that will support their case. The standard proof would, in turn, convince the juries and judges that there is “no doubt” that something is true. Teichman (2017) asserts that a “reasonable” doubt is that one that can argue with facts and not mere speculations. Merely possible doubts do not prevent the truth finders from making guilty verdicts against the defendants. The consequences for defendants proved to be guilty “beyond reasonable doubts” are usually more severe than the consequences for people found guilty in civil cases.

On the other hand, the US Federal Jury Practice and Instruction describes “preponderance of the evidence” as proof that shows something is more likely so than not so. This involves comparing two opposing types of evidence; those arguing that something is so, and those arguing that something is not so.  The juries and judges are then left to decide the verdict of such cases using the more convincing force to their minds that proves that the thing sought to be proved more likely to be true than not to be true. This implies that the prosecutors and the plaintiffs don’t need to prove with absolute certainty that the defendants are guilty of the charges labelled against them. This is so because it is rarely possible to find evidence that will prove with absolute certainty that of truly committed the crime. This is common in civil cases where the consequences for defendants proved to be guilty are relatively less severe compared to those in criminal cases.

Background Information

In the case Miller v. Minister of Pensions, Lord Denning contends that the civil “balance of probabilities” occurs when the evidence presented in a trial before juries and judges is in such a way that the juries and judges can unanimously contend that they truly think that it is more probable than not that the defendant committed the said charges. This is when the defendant is declared guilty. Lord Denning added that in cases where the probabilities are equal, then the jury and judges must settle on not (Coyne & Bell 2015). Also, in case the truth finders, juries and judges, tend to find the plaintiff’s arguments to be truer than those of the defendant, even in the slightest degree, they can rule in favour of the plaintiff unlike in criminal cases. In criminal cases, the truth finders ought to be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the facts said by prosecutors and plaintiffs against the defendants are indeed true.

For centuries, hard facts and reference to the state of mind of juries and judges have been used in arriving at verdicts against defendants in criminal cases. For the truth finders to rule that the defendants are guilty, they have to be convinced “beyond any reasonable doubt” that indeed the defendants are guilty as charged. On the hand, probabilities and references to evidence have been used as standards of proof in civil cases to determine whether the defendants are guilty of charges labelled against them or not. Additionally, in the civil cases, the beliefs or the state of minds of the truth finder also sides with probabilities and references to evidence in deciding the verdicts of the defendants. Schweizer (2016) argues that this is so because “Whatever the jury or judges’ mind believes is sought to be proved is more likely to be true than not true.” Unlike in civil cases where the degree of belief or conviction required to contend that the defendants are guilty is lighter, in criminal cases, the prosecutors bear heavy burdens of proving “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the indeed what is sought to be proved is true.

Considering that it is graver mistake to convict an innocent person than acquitting a guilty person wrongly, normative decision theory has long been suggested to help truth finders to minimize the expected costs f errors. The normative theory provides elegant explanations to truth finders on different standards of proof. That is, in case the standards of proof in criminal cases are 50 percent, and above that, the defendants committed the charges labelled against them. It would be more appropriate for the truth finders to convict the defendants rather than acquitting them despite the level at which the case has been quantified, for instance, if it is controversial or not (Coyne & Bell 2015).  This is unlike in civil cases which are a paradigm for symmetrical errors. In most civil cases, truth finders usually use the Bayesian theorem in providing pleasing and harmonious interpretations that are used in determining whether the accused is guilty of the charges labelled against them or not guilty.

Continental European Law

The Continental European Civil Law does not have established differences in standards of proof between a criminal and civil case like common laws. Rather, they only exercise the full conviction of the judge as their standard of proof regardless the type of conviction, be it a reasonable conviction or not, a “conviction resonance” or “convection intime.” Bundesgericht, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, defines this type of standard of proof that, “a court must be convinced of the truth of a factual allegation based on objective grounds. Absolute certainty is not required. It is sufficient if the court has no serious doubt or any remaining doubt appears insubstantial” (Schweizer, 2016).  Similarly, Bundersgerichtshof, the Germany Federal Supreme Court, comments on this standard of proof that, “In doubtful cases, the judge may and must be content with a degree of certainty useful for practical life that silences doubt without completely excluding it” (Schuller, & Erentzen, 2016). Despite these definitions, neither the Swiss Federal Supreme Court nor the German Federal Court has ever termed any of their decisions to convict to be on the threshold as quantified or determined by subjective probability, rather, they claim that their decision threshold is more than 90 percent.

Most Common Law lawyers are left puzzled in instances where the standard of proof is termed to be “full conviction” which implies that it is notwithstanding many exceptions. In other words, it is nearly certain. In their article, Emily Sherwin and Kevin M. Clermont voice their concerns on whether civilian judges are adhering to the set standards of proof when making a decision in determining whether the defendants are guilty of charges labelled against them or not. They assert that most civilian judges would be taking advantage of the “flexible” standards of proof allowed in civilian cases and intentionally make the symmetrical errors that rule either in favour of the defendants or against them for their selfish interests. These views are strongly echoed by the standards of proof that Swiss judicial clerks and judges claim to adhere to. When asked directly, the Swiss judicial clerks and judges claim that their standard of proof that they use in making threshold decisions are high to minimize the cost of errors that would be made by wrongly convicting the innocent and acquitting the guilty. But in the real sense, the threshold used in making conviction decisions hovers around 50 percent (Fortin, Bell, & Böhm, 2017).

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

In criminal cases, for one to be convicted of the allegations labelled against them, the prosecutors and the plaintiff should prove to the truth finders that the accessed or the defendants are guilty beyond any reasonable doubts. Reasonable doubts are the traditional set of standards in criminal cases for one to be considered guilty of the charges against them. The pieces of evidence presented in courtrooms before the truth finders by the prosecution bench should establish that indeed the accused committed the allegations he or she is tried for them to be pronounced guilty. The weight of the evidence should hold and be good in connecting the accused to the crimes he or she is being charged for. The evidence produced in court must be hard facts, and any rational person should be able to conclude that based on the evidence provided, the accused is guilty as charged.

In Canada, the United States of America, and other European countries, one is always innocent until proven guilty. The jury or judges cannot convict the defendant of the allegations against them as long as there is a trace of reasonable doubt that proves otherwise and creates doubts that to some extent, the defendant would be innocent of the allegations against them. Jones (2015) contends “Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in any court of law that can be used to determine whether one is guilty, or not guilty of the allegations they are charged.” These standards are ever held in any criminal cases because the consequences of being found guilty of charges involved in criminal cases are severe and costly. They will forever influence the life of the accused or even demand that the convicted defendants be killed. Due to this, the standard of proof “beyond any reasonable doubt” is widely accepted and practised in the word to ensure that there are no chances of mistakes. Any uncertainties that would either acquit or raise questions that would suggest that the accused is not guilty should be dealt with fully before the guilty verdict is issued.

The highest standards of proof under the law, “beyond any reasonable doubt,” are only held in criminal cases. This is because criminal cases are the worst cases in the world since most of them involve aspects of extreme violence that even threaten the lives of other people. Criminal cases involve behaviours that are or can be construed to be offensive against the society, the public or the state. Regardless of who the victim of the crime is, whether an individual, a family member or a sibling, the accused is usually considered to be a threat to the entire humanity. Examples of criminal cases include murder, robbery with violence, assault, and even drink driving. The magnitude of these cases is intense and considered to be detrimental to the entire community, unlike most civil cases. Unlike in instances of civil cases where both the prosecutors and the defendants are allowed to urge their cases before the truth finders in courtrooms during the trials before the truth finders make involved decisions, criminal cases are different.

There is no room for truth finders to say what they think is right or wrong. Entirely, they have to scrutinize pieces of evidence and make informed decisions on the verdict of the cases. In case they are not sure whether the defendants are not guilty, they are mandated to allow more time for investigations or declare the accused not guilty. The costs of making the wrong decisions in criminal cases are usually very severe. When comparing the cost of pronouncing an innocent person guilty, convict them or even condemn them to death and the value of declaring a guilty person not guilty and guarantying them their freedom, condemning an innocent person guilty outweighs the consequences of freeing a guilty person. Once pronounced guilty, an innocent person can be killed for a crime that he or she did not commit. But when a guilty person is set free, there are chances that the prosecutors will come up with new evidence that will link the freed defendant to the crime. In this case, the new evidence would help truth finders to make decisions and ensure that there are no reasonable doubts that would prove otherwise before declaring the defendant guilty.

The concept of the cost of convicting an innocent person has been stressed to be more severe than the cost of freeing a guilt person through the years. This has been stated many times in the history of the United States of America, including the case of Benjamin Franklin where it was said: “It is much better for a hundred guilty people to escape justices and set free than convicting and condemning one innocent person for a crime that he or she did not do” (Collins, 2016).  This implies that it is a grave mistake for the society to condemn and rob one person of his innocence and implicate him or her for something that he or she did not do in the name of suffering justice. The consequences of terming one to be guilty for a criminal charge that he or she is guilty of are irreversible. For this reason, truth finders, judges and juries, are required to be hundred percent sure that indeed the defendants committed the said criminal charges before they pass their guilty verdicts for the defendants.

Practical Example of the Concept of Reasonable Doubt

One of the best cases illustrating the concept of reasonable doubt is the 1995 murder case in which the footballer, O. J. Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman (Grant, & Benedet, 2019). The prosecution bench submitted a lot of damaging pieces of evidence that aimed at strategically proving that the footballer indeed murdered his ex-wife and her friend. One of the strongest pieces of incriminating pieces evidence that the prosecutors presented in the courtroom during the trial of the former footballer are DNA samples collected from the crime scene and samples of blood that were collected from Simpson’s car. To counter this evidence and create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and judges listening to his case, Simpson assembled a legal “Dream team.” In their defence, the lawyers of the former footballer sought to cast doubts on the integrity of the police offers that arrived at the crime scene first. They argued that considering the police offers that arrived at the crime scene first had a long “unpleasing” history with Simpson. There were chances that they intentionally planted his DNA in the crime scene to implicate the former footballer. This claims created reasonable doubts in the minds of the jury and the judges proceeding over the case, thereby questioning the validity of the DNA samples that were collected from the crime scene and also the integrity of the police officers who were the first to reach the crime scene.

In addition to this, during the trial in courtroom, the former footballer tried pulling on a bloody leather glove that was said to have been recovered from his property to proof that it did not fit into his hand, thereby there is no possible explanation on why he would have bought a leather glove that would not fit into his hands and use it to commit a crime. In his closing remarks on defending Simpson, the former footballer’s lead defence counsel, Johnnie Cochrane urged the jury and the judges proceeding the case that, “If it does not fit, you must acquit.” During the case, the defence counsel lead by Cochrane listed 15 points that effectively countered the evidence presented by the prosecutors (Grant, & Benedet, 2019). These points managed to create reasonable doubts in the minds of the jury and the judges that Simpson would be innocent of the allegations that he murdered his ex-wife and her friend. In less than four days of deliberation on the evidence presented in the courtroom by the prosecutors that incriminated the former footballer and the counter-evidence submitted by Simpson’s legal team, the jury found Simpson not guilty for both the two counts of murder.

Following the outcome of the case where the jury declared Simpson not guilty of both counts of murder, a year later, the families of both the victims filled another case against Simpson. In their second case, they filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against the former footballer. Considering the low standards of proof that are upheld in civil cases, “preponderance of proof,” the jury found Simpson guilty of the allegations against him, being liable for both murders, and mandated him to pay both families a sum of $8.5 million for the damages (Grant, & Benedet, 2019). In both cases, the judges were relatively the same, but the type of cases was different.

In the first case, the families sued Mr Simpson of murdering both his ex-wife and her friend. This is a first-degree criminal case, and it needed high standards of proof, “beyond any reasonable doubt,” for the jury to convict Mr Simpson for these allegations. The defence counsel of the accused managed to raise questions and arguments that created reasonable doubts in the minds of the jury whether indeed Simpson was guilty of the allegations or not (Grant, & Benedet, 2019). This doubts forced the jury and the judges proceeding over the case to acquit him. On the other hand, in the second case, the families sued Simpson for being liable for the death of his ex-wife and her friend. This is a civil case, and thereby the standards of the proof required in such case are relatively lower. The jury found Simpson guilty of the charges and demanded him to pay the families a sum of $8.5 million as the damages he caused.

The preponderance of the evidence

Unlike in criminal cases, civil cases do not involve the state bringing charges or making claims in the litigation process of such cases. In most civil cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary compensation for the damages caused by the defendants.  Even so, some civil cases involve the plaintiff requesting the court to follow thorough a contract or put an injection that would prevent something from happening.  In such cases, jail terms are not remedies. The myriad types of civil cases ranging from personal injuries such as product defect claim to breach of contracts such as employment discrimination.  Through civil justice systems, people are helped to solve their private disputes and even sue employers when they feel that employers are violating their fundamental rights. Both parties involved in such cases are given their days to be listened to and heard in courtrooms before truth finders, the jury or judges, make their verdicts to determine if the accused is guilty of the allegations or not.

In civil cases, the standards of proof are relatively lower than in criminal cases, “preponderance of proof.” In such cases, the plaintiff is mandated to file complaints and state the facts on why he or she is suing the defendant. The plaintiff is required to give his or her submission of the legal grounds under which he or she is suing the defendant. The burden of proof for the plaintiff in such cases is to convince the jury and judges that they have stable legal grounds and hard facts that they need to prove the defendant is guilty of the allegations labelled against them. Even so, it is not a must for plaintiffs to convince the jury and judges that the accused is guilty of the charges. Mueller-Johnson, Dhami, & Lundrigan (2018) contend that the main task of the plaintiff in courtrooms is to argue their case and persuade the jury and judges that considering the evidence that is presented in court, their version of the argument is more likely to be true than not true.

In case the plaintiff manages to persuade the jury and judges preceding the case that this or her version of the argument is more likely to be true than not true based on the evidence that is presented in courtroom before the truth finders, the jury or judges will find the defendant guilty and in most cases mandate them to compensate the plaintiff of the damages that are caused. This implies that the plaintiff will prevail in that particular civil case. On the other hand, if the plaintiff does not succeed to persuade the jury and judges that based on the evidence presented in the courtroom before them, the plaintiff does not prevail. Instead, the defendant prevails. In such cases, the argument version of the plaintiff does not appear to be more likely to be true than not true. In such outcomes, the plaintiff may be mandated to pay the accused damages that the litigation process caused to the image of the accused.

Considering that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in civil cases, the defendant is not mandated to do anything to prove their case or to avoid the truth finders from finding for the plaintiff.  This implies that the plaintiffs are the one to prove the legal grounds and the fact that the accused violated their rights or wronged them. They take the central stage in the whole litigation process. Even so, the defendant may be given chances to counter the allegations laid by the plaintiff. The juries are allowed to use different methods such as the Bayesian theorem to determine the truthiness of the arguments laid by the plaintiff. In case the plaintiffs are not able to persuade the jury that their arguments are more likely to be true than not, the defendant prevails. It is of the essence to note that if the plaintiffs are not able to convince the juries, the defendants can prevail even without presenting a defence counsel.

Practical Example of the Concept of Preponderance of the Evidence

The 1954 civil case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka serves as one of the landmark civil cases in the history of the United States of America. In the case, Brown and the other four students sued the board of education of Topeka for segregating them against the rest students due to their skin colour. The students, blacks, were not allowed to use the same buses as the white students, share the same public facilities, or even interact with the whites freely.  In their verdict, the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled unanimously that racial segregation of students in public America schools was unconstitutional. The ruling of the Supreme Court judges on this case becomes a cornerstone for African’s quest in seeking equality and the abolishment of segregation policies.

Measuring Standards of Proof

1. Direct report method

This method of measuring standards of poof is also referred to as a self-report method. It involves verbally inquiring from different participants in the case on their feeling, beliefs, attitudes, and so on including standards of proof such as jury instruction in different subjective probabilities. The outcomes of subjective probabilities will then be used in determining whether the defendants should be convicted of the charges labelled against them or not. The decision threshold obtained using the direct rating method is critical in making comparisons with decisions thresholds arrived using different methods (Forcese, & Mamikon, 2015).  Even so, the decision threshold given in this method is not suitable in answering the question regarding the actual standards that judges employed in deciding conviction. This is because, when asked on the standards of proof they will use, the judges are more likely to give their answers based on the set standards and what is expected of them rather than the threshold that they will use in arriving ad decisions meant to convict or set free the defendants. For this reason, direct rating method of measuring standard of proof is not commonly used in sophisticated and controversial cases.

1. Decision theory-based method

This method of measuring standard of proof uses mathematical properties and logic in making decisions under uncertainty conditions. In this case, the probability, Pr (p) that the charges against the defendants are true is experienced as a subject of many variables.  According to the equation below, the expected costs of the decision arrived by the truth infers in a trial court can be minimized by ensuring that the Pr (p) is equal or greater than the value calculated using the variables present in the equation (Rehaag 2017).

From the equation, D_fp represents the disutility of false positive decisions. An example if D_fp is using unfounded claims to convict an innocent person. D_fn denotes the disutility of a false negative. A good example of this is denying well-founded claims and setting free a guilty person. D_CP represents the disutility of a correct positive, for instance, using well-founded claims to convict a guilty person. On the other hand, D_cn represents disutility of a correct negative, for instance, denying unfounded claims that are meant to convict the innocent and setting them free. The use of dis-utilities in decision theory-based method in measuring the standards of proof results in lower decision thresholds than those obtained when a direct report method is used. Even in criminal cases, the decision threshold barely reaches the 50 percent mark (Estabrooks, 2015). This is greatly associated with its tendency to only estimate a normative decision threshold.

1. Parallel-ranking method

This method of determining the decision threshold is also referred to as rank-order. It was initially developed and used for the first time by Simon in 1970 when half of the subjects used to determine the decision threshold of the defendant believed that the accused was guilty, and the other half expressed their thought that the accused was innocent of the allegations labelled them again. Mensah & Williams (2015) explain that in such case, “The subjective probabilities are ranked from highest to lowest, and the minimum threshold for a guilty verdict is determined by counting down the probability ratings to the rank number corresponding to the proportion of guilty verdicts obtained in the dichotomous decision condition.” The disadvantage is that it has low statistical data. It is only effective when the data involved is small.

Loss aversion and Standard of Proof in Civil Cases

Various researches on behavioural economies denote that in most cases, people show reference point-dependent variations. When choosing between a positive gamble and a sure gain, most people usually tend to be risk-averse. On the contrary, when people are required to make a choice between a negative gamble and a sure lose, they usually tend to be risk-seeking. Prospect theory, Trersky and Kahneman’s descriptive theory of human decision making describes the S-shape value function to be a convex in the domain of loses while the convex in the S-shape to denote gains. From the S-shaped value functions, Trersky and Kahneman also contended that losses loom larger than gains. They add that, “The aggravation that one experience in losing a sum of money appears to be greater than the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount” (Picinali 2018). The size of the stake positively correlate with the aversiveness of symmetric bets, that is, aversiveness of symmetric bets leads to the increased size of the stake. This implies that the gradient for gains is less steep compared to the gradient of losses. In choices regarding consumption goods and monetary outcomes, the ratio of gains to losses lies between 2 and 2.5 for both risky and reckless. These findings denote that the experience that people undergo due to disutility for loss is twice the utility that they experience for a corresponding gain.

Concepts that Influence the Mindset for Truth finders in Civil Cases

Laurence H. Tribe asserts that the use of mathematics concepts, such as Baye’s theorem care significantly in affecting the mindset of truth finders when determining verdicts for cases (Thompson, 2016). Such concepts tend to cause ‘overbearing impressiveness’ of numbers that cause ‘dwarf’ in some evidence. This does not necessarily call for us to ignore mathematics in courtrooms. They prove to be useful in cementing legal logics that would otherwise be confusing without mathematical logic. Tribe furthers that advances in forensics fully rely on data analysis, a mathematical concept, in scrutinizing every piece of evidence ranging from gunpowder to DNA. In judicial deliberation, quantitative and qualitative methods of analyzing evidence are critical to ensure that the jury and the judges make sound decisions based on the evidence presented to them in courtrooms. Through these mathematical concepts, they are able to make legal logics with fundamentally sound mathematical arguments. Even though Tribe acknowledges the importance of mathematics in revealing the truth, he warns that in inexperienced hands, mathematics can be a lethal tool that can be used in impeding justice and destroying innocent lives.

Bayes’ Theorem

For decades, Bayes’ theorem has been used in courtrooms in analyzing statistical evidence. Bayesian statistics have been widely accepted and used as a possible alternative to classical approaches that are used in analyzing various sets of data. Bayesian methods are not only used in courtrooms in analyzing evidence, but also they are applied in other areas and fields such as nuclear waste disposal, economics, medicine, and in marketing (Forcese & Roach 2018). For instance, in the medical field, Bayesian statistics are used from clinical trials and survival modelling to using new technologies in making decisions. The same approach is taken in legal research and proceedings. In legal frameworks, Bayesian methods are used in establishing the strength of legal evidence that the jury deliberates in hypothetical scenarios and actual court cases when deciding the verdicts for the cases presented in courtrooms.

Philosophical Foundation of the Application of Bayes’ Rule to Law

In 1954, George Polya proposed “plausible reasoning”, a mathematical foundation that was based on syllogistic and mathematical descriptions that would provide heuristics or guidelines used in analyzing patterns of reasoning. These guidelines would use particular causes to make certain conclusions. Polya contended that “This type of inductive reasoning is a special case of plausible reasoning and is quite conspicuous in everyday life.” Polya frequently used examples and scenarios from courts of law in illustrating his points in inferences, conjectures, formulations of patterns of plausible reasoning, and discussion of consequences.  Chartrand (2015) asserts that to some extent, Polya was focused on determining how well his formulated patterns related to the “calculus of probabilities,” and determining whether they would be used as “rules” of plausible reasoning. Currently, courtrooms are applying for Polya’s elegant work in legal decision-making.

Pollanen (2016) affirms that a good example of Poya’s heuristic that relates to legal decision-making with a Bayesian mindset is examining several consequences in succession. Polya suggested this proposal with the aim of measuring the credibility of a certain conjecture A, say the accused is legally guilty, using several pieces of evidence presented in a criminal trial in a courtroom, say B₁, B₂, B₃ …of the conjecture A. Polya argues that the strength of the evidence B₁, B₂, B₃ presented in the courtroom will be critical in the increment of the credibility of A. Polya contends that, “In considering the process followed in examining consequences of possible actions or in testing the credibility of rival or conflicting conjectures (“Guilty” or “Not Guilty”) in a criminal court case, the quantification of probabilities may provide a more explicit demonstration of the predictability of a particular outcome.”

Using Bayes’ Rule in Legal Decision-Making

Over the years, Bayesian methods have widely been accepted and often used for data analysis in courtrooms when making critical decisions in determining whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the judges labelled against them. Jurors use Bayesian models in various ways in arriving at their decision for court verdicts. For instance, Rosenthal (2015) contends that the jury use Bayesian model to estimate the prior probability that the defendant is guilty (Marshall and Wise 1975; Gelfand and Solomon 1973), determine the probability of conviction by first-ballot votes and jury size (Gelfand and Solomon 1974, 1975), and to evaluate credibility (Schum 1975). A good example on the application of Bayesian approach was in a model by Marshall and Wise in which the jurors used the approach and predicted that the defendants were 80.5 percent guilt of the judges labelled against them.  Over the years, Bayesian approaches have also been used in actual court cases testimonies such as People v. Collins, R v. Adams, People v. Sally Clark and many more cases.

In his article, Walen (2015) asserts that the jury determines whether one is guilty or not depending on the accumulation of probabilities. Bayesian mindset is of the essence in such instances since it provides the jury with a mechanism that they use to combine several pieces of evidence presented in the trial. Jurors than apply Bayesian approach successfully on all the presented pieces of evidence with the posterior from one stage becoming the prior of the next stage. This helps them to minimize discrepancies among juror’s views on whether the defendant is guilty or not and increases their confidence about the status of the defendant’s guilt. Using the Bayesian theory, the jury can also develop a framework through which they will quantify uncertainties and establish methods that they can use in revising uncertainty measures when new evidence is presented before them in courtrooms.  Through this, jurors have a method that they can use in measuring the strength of the evidence that is produced before them during the trials and generate the likelihood of an unknown event, such as determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the judges. For this reason, even the judges of this era are using Bayesian methods because they perceive them to be a calculus of evidence, rather than a mere measurement of a belief.

Conclusion

The standards of proof differ depending on the type of the case that is presented before the truth finders. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is higher than in civil cases. This is because the consequences of being found guilty in criminal cases are severe and can even cost the life of the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiffs in civil cases are only seeking compensation for damages caused; thereby the consequences are less severe. Due to this, the plaintiff and prosecutors in criminal cases have to convince the truth finders beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant is indeed guilty of the allegations against them for them to prevail. Plaintiffs cannot prevail unless they clear all reasonable doubts that the defendants would be innocent. On the other hand, the standards of proof for civil cases are relatively lower, “preponderance of the evidence.” All the plaintiff need to do is to persuade the jury that their version of the argument against the defendant is more likely to be true than not true.

References

Chartrand, P. L. (2015). Balancing the Rights of Migrants and International Criminal Law: The Case of Alleged Rwandan War Criminals Under Canada’s Immigration Laws. Canadian Bar Review, 93(2).

Collins, L. M. (2016). Material Contribution to Risk in the Canadian Law of Toxic Torts. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 91, 567.

Coyne, J., & Bell, P. (2015). International Case Study 1: Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC). In The Role of Strategic Intelligence in Law Enforcement: Policing Transnational Organized Crime in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia (pp. 38-56). Palgrave Pivot, London.

Estabrooks, M. S. (2015). Criminal Appeals in the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Criminal Law Amendments. Crim. LQ, 62, 4.

Forcese, C., & Mamikon, A. (2015). Neutrality Law, Anti-Terrorism, and Foreign Fighters: Legal Solutions to the Recruitment of Canadians to Foreign Insurgencies. UBCL, Rev., 48, 305.

Forcese, C., & Roach, K. (2018). Yesterday’s Law: Terrorist Group Listing in Canada. Terrorism and political violence, 30(2), 259-277.

Fortin, N. M., Bell, B., & Böhm, M. (2017). Top earnings inequality and the gender pay gap: Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Labour Economics, 47, 107-123.

Grant, I., & Benedet, J. (2019). Confronting the Sexual Assault of Teenage Girls: The Mistake of Age Defence in Canadian Sexual Assault Law. Can. B. Rev., 97, 1.

Jones, B. (2015). Accepting That Children Are Not Miniature Adults: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Youth Criminal Justice Developments in Canada and the United States. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 19(1), 95.

Mensah, J., & Williams, C. J. (2015). Seeing/being double: How African immigrants in Canada balance their ethno-racial and national identities. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, 8(1), 39-54.

Mueller-Johnson, K., Dhami, M. K., & Lundrigan, S. (2018). Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(2), 117-133.

Picinali, F. (2018). Can the reasonable doubt standard be justified? A reconstructed dialogue. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 31(2), 365-402.

Pollanen, M. S. (2016). On the strength of evidence in forensic pathology. Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 12(1), 95-97.

Rehaag, S. (2017). I Simply Do Not Believe A Case Study of Credibility Determinations in Canadian Refugee Adjudication. Windsor Rev. Legal & Soc. Issues, 38, 38.

Rosenthal, J. S. (2015). Probability, Justice, and the Risk of Wrongful Conviction. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 12(1), 11-18.

Schuller, R., & Erentzen, C. (2016). The Challenge for Cause Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law. Oñati Socio-legal Series, 6(2).

Schweizer, M. (2016). The civil standard of proof—what is it, actually?. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 20(3), 217-234.

Teichman, D. (2017). Convicting with Reasonable Doubt: An Evidentiary Theory of Criminal Law. Notre Dame L. Rev., 93, 757.

Thompson, J. (2016). Reconsidering the Burden of Proof in Dangerous Offender Law: Canadian Jurisprudence, Risk Assessment and Aboriginal Offenders. Sask. L. Rev., 79, 49.

Walen, A. (2015). Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A Balances Retributive Account. La. L. Rev., 76, 355.